Quantcast

Jump to content

» «
Photo

At least 9 shot dead

131 replies to this topic
illspirit
  • illspirit

    lycanthroplasty

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 01 May 1976
  • None

#121

Posted 09 December 2007 - 08:40 AM

QUOTE (Sina84 @ Dec 9 2007, 02:21)
What the hell does that have to do with anything? You either missed my point on purpose or you're retarded. The process of spearing thousands of captives on stakes has very little to do with one person committing mass murder within minutes using a sharpened stick. Let me get this straight then. You're actually denying the fact that a gun is a more effective weapon than a knife or spear? Jesus f*cking christ.

This is tiring... First of all, that guy stabbed CHILDREN hiding in their classrooms, and any teacher that tried to stop him. That's not difficult. If a little punk teenager came into a mall and tried to stab someone with a spear, he would've probably gotten one or two people injured, if that, before he was either wrestled down or before everyone had scattered. But that's beside the point because do you honestly think he would've done this if he didn't have a gun? Do you think he would sit thinking "Ok, I'll go to the mall and kill as many people as I can with my spear, since I'm so adept at using spears, and then when they all lie dead around me, I'll... ehh... stab myself in the throat or something and die. Then I'll be famous".


Yes, guns are more effective when engaging at a distance, and when engaging someone who is already attacking or is otherwise prepared to fight back. But when surprising an unarmed victim, firearms lose much of their inherit advantage. Doubly so in close quarters. Most lethal force experts and law enforcement instructors will tell you that in a gun vs. knife situation within 6 to 21 feet, edged weapons are more dangerous in the hands of a determined attacker.

Firearms aren't the magical talismans you see on TV. They simply put a small hole in whatever you're aiming at, assuming you know how to aim. In the case of an AK clone, said hole would be roughly 7.62mm in diameter. Impaling someone on, say, a sharpened shovel handle would make a significantly larger wound. Oh, and edged/pointy weapons don't need reloading.

Granted, a bystander could have countered in an equally medieval way by fashioning a club and shield from a trash can lid and a broken bit of bench with which to fight a stick wielding attacker. So, yes, you're probably right that the body count likely wouldn't have been quite as high. But while said stick may not have been as effective as a firearm, this does nothing to change the fact that it is still a lethal instrument. Nor does the irrational focus on the inanimate object used in any given attack do a thing about the real cause of crime.

Likewise, in such a hypothetical situation where there are no guns available, the weak are, by default, at the mercy of the strong. In the times before the musket was invented, women, children, the elderly, and infirmed were powerless against large, strong men with swords and clubs. Sorta like that classroom in Japan. Which was my subtle point with the Dracula and Osaka reference (thanks for walking into that and preemptively proving my point, btw wink.gif ). When any one side has a monopoly on force, or even a marginal disparity thereof, bad things happen. Be it unarmed shoppers versus a man with a gun or a damn stick; up to a government with the power to do whatever they like.

QUOTE
He wouldn't, since you'd have to be good at it to kill people with a spear and the chances of f*cking it up completely are so high that he probably would've done something else to get back at the world, whereas if he had access to a gun which any asshole could kill with to some extent, his plan becomes plausible. You try and tell me the Virginia tech guy would've done just as well if he walked into classroom after classroom only carrying a spear, or if he would've at all. But based on your arguments, that's exactly what you're saying, making you a complete f*cking idiot.

This argument that the type of weapon used doesn't matter is too unbelievably retarded for words, saying a spear is just as effective for killing as a modern rifle or handgun, when a modern rifle or handgun are the results of thousands of years of people trying to make the most effective weapon for killing.


Aye, he probably wouldn't have walked in with a stick because most people believe the myth that firearms are magic. This is in no small part due to hype from anti-gun propaganda and Hollywood which makes them appear as such.

No, were he not suffering from this widespread delusion, he might have just realized he could have killed everyone in the building with a car bomb.

Same goes for Virginia Tech, which, contrary to popular belief, wasn't the worst school massacre in US history. That title was claimed by a bombing in Bath, Michigan back in 1927. And that was "despite" the fact there were pretty much no gun laws back then, and one could walk into a hardware store and buy a machine gun, no questions asked.

Or, for that matter, kinda like the mall bombing in Finland a few years ago.

QUOTE
That's the stupidest thing I ever heard. By your rationale, if liberty meant being free from government control, shouldn't drugs be legal? Shouldn't prostitution be legal? Shouldn't you have the liberty to commit any crime you wanted without consequence from the government then? You hypocritical idiot, the government is there to govern and instil laws, making everything that is deemed damaging to society (drugs, prostitution etc) illegal. They ARE controlling what you can and can't do already, and how can you even dare make that argument in a country like America with things like the patriot act where the rights of the populace are very limited and government control is supreme. You're saying that, despite all the liberties you don't have and despite how much the government is controlling what you can and can't do, that if the government decided that weapons designed to kill human beings were deemed too dangerous to be allowed in the hands of regular people, only then would you think the government was controlling? Jesus f*cking christ.

It seems like, most of America, you couldn't give a f*ck about all the liberties you lose, aslong as you can still play with your guns you have liberty? Mentality of children.


WTF are you talking about? Personally, yes, I think drugs and prostitution should be legal. As should anything else which doesn't directly affect another person. It is not the government's job to be our nanny. And, yes, the War on Drugs™ sucks. The "PATRIOT" act sucks. This is why I'm involved in politics, and trying to win back freedoms one bit at a time. Given the ebb and flow between the two parties of our political system (who equally hate different types of freedom), sometimes we win, sometimes we lose. As long as the system works somewhat, it should be used.

Should it fail, and the government descends into abject tyranny, we must retain the option to reset it, so to speak.

QUOTE
Learn to read. I never said it wasn't, I said it shouldn't be since it's incredibly outdated. Unless you still have the right to own slaves in America, I'm not sure.


It doesn't matter if you think it's incredibly outdated. It doesn't matter if a majority thinks it's incredibly outdated. The US is a constitutional republic, not a democracy. And unlike slavery, which was never a "right," and abolished by amending the Constitution, nothing in the Bill of Rights can be repealed. Any attempt to do so would invalidate the rest of the document.

QUOTE
Ok, you're right, I retract my statement. America is not a civilized society.


Now you're catching on. tounge2.gif

Teqila
  • Teqila

    Eccentric

  • Members
  • Joined: 11 Jul 2006

#122

Posted 09 December 2007 - 04:15 PM

http://www.foxnews.c...,315563,00.html

This might be fun to know. It could have made a difference.

bagga rabbit
  • bagga rabbit

    ***M2D***

  • Awaiting Authorisation
  • Joined: 26 Feb 2007

#123

Posted 09 December 2007 - 04:56 PM

QUOTE (Teqila @ Dec 9 2007, 11:15)
http://www.foxnews.c...,315563,00.html

This might be fun to know. It could have made a difference.

Nice link..thanks. icon14.gif

Shylock
  • Shylock

    Gedachtnisse sind genau das.

  • The Precinct
  • Joined: 13 Aug 2007

#124

Posted 09 December 2007 - 06:06 PM

QUOTE (bagga rabbit @ Dec 9 2007, 17:56)
QUOTE (Teqila @ Dec 9 2007, 11:15)
http://www.foxnews.c...,315563,00.html

This might be fun to know. It could have made a difference.

Nice link..thanks. icon14.gif

It wouldn't of mattered. The whole thing was over before any gun toting shopper would of been able to do anything about it. Not to mention it was Von Maur which immediately makes me doubt anyone with a gun would be in there. Unless the gun was to protect their personal dignity.

HolyGrenadeFrenzy
  • HolyGrenadeFrenzy

    drrnage E ih unarEy

  • Members
  • Joined: 05 Jul 2006

#125

Posted 09 December 2007 - 06:50 PM

I think this is a great time to mention Fire Arm removeal techniques like several martial arts including an excellent one that attracts some attention in regards to this and is an antiterroist focused MA. monocle.gif Krav Maga

--supea--
  • --supea--

    Homeboy

  • Members
  • Joined: 25 Apr 2007

#126

Posted 09 December 2007 - 07:57 PM

QUOTE (HolyGrenadeFrenzy @ Dec 9 2007, 20:50)
I think this is a great time to mention Fire Arm removeal techniques like several martial arts including an excellent one that attracts some attention in regards to this and is an antiterroist focused MA.  monocle.gif Krav Maga

Is that advertising?! anuj_cop.gif

Haha but sounds awesome!

illspirit
  • illspirit

    lycanthroplasty

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 01 May 1976
  • None

#127

Posted 09 December 2007 - 10:25 PM

QUOTE (Shylock @ Dec 9 2007, 14:06)
It wouldn't of mattered.  The whole thing was over before any gun toting shopper would of been able to do anything about it.  Not to mention it was Von Maur which immediately makes me doubt anyone with a gun would be in there.  Unless the gun was to protect their personal dignity.

Not necessarily. Here's a firsthand account from someone who had a nice, clean shot and was in the process of getting a CHL. If he had received the license already (and the mall wasn't a "gun free" zone), he may have been able to drop the guy after the first round of shots.

And then there was the Trolley Square shooting, where an off-duty cop with his personal sidearm ran across the mall and pinned the shooter down with return fire. By doing so, he cut the rampage short.

Or the Tacoma Mall shooting, where someone with a CCW drew down on the shooter, but unfortunately didn't feel he had a clean shot to take. After meeting armed resistance though, the shooter changed his plan and took hostages instead.

HolyGrenadeFrenzy
  • HolyGrenadeFrenzy

    drrnage E ih unarEy

  • Members
  • Joined: 05 Jul 2006

#128

Posted 09 December 2007 - 10:30 PM Edited by HolyGrenadeFrenzy, 09 December 2007 - 10:37 PM.

EDIT: Nice one illspirit. icon14.gif icon14.gif ^^ I posted before I had seen that post.

"An armed society is a polite society"- A saying of a city on the East Coast whose name I can't remember which have laws more similair to those Northern Countries that require everyone of a certain age have access to a fire arm. The lowest crime rate in the country with the lowest murder count in decades.....the only homocide was a knife wound in recent times the last I checked.

QUOTE (--supea-- @ Dec 9 2007, 14:57)
QUOTE (HolyGrenadeFrenzy @ Dec 9 2007, 20:50)
I think this is a great time to mention Fire Arm removeal techniques like several martial arts including an excellent one that attracts some attention in regards to this and is an antiterroist focused MA.  monocle.gif Krav Maga

Is that advertising?! anuj_cop.gif

Haha but sounds awesome!

Not really. But that is why I put it to the history page.

I could mention several other arts yet this one is often missed and the Israelli are taking it seriosly in a personal and military sense.

To come and take that weapon from that %^^$% with a serious smack down.

Shylock
  • Shylock

    Gedachtnisse sind genau das.

  • The Precinct
  • Joined: 13 Aug 2007

#129

Posted 10 December 2007 - 02:26 AM Edited by Shylock, 10 December 2007 - 02:59 AM.

You are failing to understand MY point. I'm not against guns, I have several.

That first hand account of the Von Maur shooting doesn't prove anything. He did a lot of standing around pondering about what is going on. My point was that chances of an armed shopper being close enough to do something about it would be slim to none. Especially considering location, time of day, type of store etc. etc. etc. If it would of been at Dick Sporting Goods I have NO DOUBT someone could subdue him after mere fractions of a second (if they could be armed). But it wasn't there, and they weren't armed. It was at a clothing store, in the middle of a weekday afternoon, filled with mostly women who were shopping.

THAT is the point I was making. Not whether or not an armed shopper could have stopped him. More of whether the "gun free zone" really mattered in this case.

Edit* Making "gun free zones" the scapegoat for every massacre happening is petty. Like it was said before, if a criminal knows they are going to encounter a lot of resistance they would probably go someplace else. Like say, the Childrens Hospital down the street. Or the school for massage therapy THREE BLOCKS AWAY from the mall. Or how about the Family Fun Center (predominantly kids who are dropped off as day care while there mothers shop) next door in the other direction. Chucky Cheeses. etc.etc.etc. Sadly enough, psychotic social rejects such as the Omaha shooter would just go next door where they know there are more targets, with less people who would be able to defend themselves if they knew they would encounter armed targets at there location of choice.

There really is no "upside" to allowing weapons in malls and schools. It will just shift the massacres to other locations, with people who don't have the ability to defend themselves. Not to mention that in every shooting there are people who had the "ability" to do something if they were armed. But since they aren't armed we can't really assume they would of done anything. Just because someone has a gun, doesn't mean they are willing to use it.

QUOTE (The Wiki article on Citizens Arrest)
Note particularly that American citizens do not have the authorities or the legal protections of the police, and are strictly liable before both the civil law and criminal law for any violation of the rights of another.


And I'm rambling I think.

Tuff Luv Capo
  • Tuff Luv Capo

    We must find Ansama Benlanden

  • Feroci
  • Joined: 15 Oct 2002
  • None

#130

Posted 10 December 2007 - 03:42 AM

I'm sure if the people in this topic were there, you'd all go CQC on his ass... sarcasm.gif

illspirit
  • illspirit

    lycanthroplasty

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 01 May 1976
  • None

#131

Posted 10 December 2007 - 03:48 AM

QUOTE (Shylock @ Dec 9 2007, 22:26)
You are failing to understand MY point.  I'm not against guns, I have several.

That first hand account of the Von Maur shooting doesn't prove anything.  He did a lot of standing around pondering about what is going on.  My point was that chances of an armed shopper being close enough to do something about it would be slim to none.

Sure. But a slim chance is still a chance. Guaranteed victim disarmament by signs which only people inclined to follow the law obey removes all chance from the situation. As illustrated by the man who not only followed the law by not carrying without a permit, but would have also followed the law and obeyed the sign. This is what left him standing there pondering before he ran away. tounge.gif

QUOTE
There really is no "upside" to allowing weapons in malls and schools.  It will just shift the massacres to other locations, with people who don't have the ability to defend themselves.


You raise a good point in regards to displacement. But then, isn't that pretty much just what happened here already? wink.gif

The simple answer would be to remove all "gun free" zone signs so that nut cases won't know where the soft targets are. At least from places that don't already have armed security.

How could not advertising a soft target be anything but an upside? And what would be the downside anyway? It's not like people who go through all the trouble of background checks, classes, and in some cases fingerprinting in order to get a permit are the ones who will be shooting people at random..

QUOTE
Not to mention that in every shooting there are people who had the "ability" to do something if they were armed.  But since they aren't armed we can't really assume they would of done anything.  Just because someone has a gun, doesn't mean they are willing to use it.

Correct. There is no way to know whether someone with a gun would be able to do anything. But we do know for certain that someone without a gun is capable of doing precisely nothing.

illspirit
  • illspirit

    lycanthroplasty

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 01 May 1976
  • None

#132

Posted 11 December 2007 - 07:13 AM

*cough*




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users